ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>> > Why the "sigpending < LONG_MAX" test in that
>>> >
>>> > if (override_rlimit || (sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <=
>>> > task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
>>> > thing?
>>>
>>> On second look that sigpending < LONG_MAX check is necessary. When
>>> inc_rlimit_ucounts detects a problem it returns LONG_MAX.
>>
>> I saw that, but _without_ that test you'd be left with just that
>>
>> sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
>>
>> and if task_rlimit() is LONG_MAX, then that means "no limits", so it is all ok.
>
> It means no limits locally. The creator of your user namespace might
> have had a limit which you are also bound by.
>
> The other possibility is that inc_rlimits_ucounts caused a sigpending
> counter to overflow. In which case we need to fail and run
> dec_rlimit_ucounts to keep the counter from staying overflowed.
>
> So I don't see a clever way to avoid the sigpending < LONG_MAX test.
Hmm. I take that back. There is a simple clever way to satisfy all of
the tests.
- sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
+ sigpending < task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
That would just need a small comment to explain the subtleties.
Eric
